The use of correspondence analysis in the study of beef quality: A case study on Parda de Montaña breed;El uso de correspondencias múltiples como herramienta para el estudio de la calidad de la carne de ternera: Análisis de un caso utilizando animales de la raza Parda de Montaña

Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 876-885

  Panea, B ^a   Casasus I ^a   Blanco, M ^a   Joy, M ^a  

^a Agrifood Institute of Aragón IA2   (Spain)

Author keywords

Consumer behaviour; Multiple correspondence analysis; Relationships; Sensory; Statistics

Indexed keywords

EID: 75149153915     PISSN: 1695971X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5424/sjar/2009074-1101     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. ARDITTI S., 1997. Preference mapping: a case study. Food Qual Pref 8, 323-327. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(97)00010-4.
2. BECH A.C., HANSEN M., WIENBERG L., 1997. Application of house of quality in translation of consumer needs into sensory attributes measurable by descriptive sensory analysis. Food Qual Pref 8, 329-348. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(97)00062-1.
3. BOUTROLLE I., ARRANZ D., ROGEAUX M., DELARUE J., 2005. Comparing central location test and home use test results: Application of a new criterion. Food Qual Pref 16, 704-713. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.03.015.
4. BOWER J.A., 1995. Statistic for food science III. Sensory evaluation data. Part A. Sensory data types and significance testing. Nutr Food Sci, 35-42. doi: 10.1108/00346659510103647.
5. CAMPO M.M., SAÑUDO C., PANEA B., ALBERT P., SANTOLARIA P., 1999. Breed type and ageing time effects on sensory characteristics of beef strip loin steaks. Meat Sci 51, 383-390. doi:10.1016/S0309-1740(98)00159-4.
6. CARDELLO A.V., SCHUTZ H., SNOW C., LESHER L., 2000. Predictors of food acceptance, consumption and satisfaction in specific eating situations. Food Qual Pref 11, 201-216. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00055-5.
7. th Int Congress of Meat Sci and Tech, pp. 370-373. Helsinki (Finland). 8-13 August.
8. FAYE P., BREMAUD D., TEILLER E., COURCOUX P., GIBOREAU A., NICOD H., 2006. An alternative to external preference mapping based on consumer perceptive mapping. Food Qual Pref 17, 604-614. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.05.006.
9. FORDE C.G., DELAHUNTY C.M., 2004. Understanding the role cross-modal sensory interactions play in food acceptability in younger and older consumers. Food Qual Pref 15, 715-727. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2003.12.008.
10. GOODSON K.J., MORGAN W.W., REAGAN J.O., GWARTNEY B.L., COURINGTON S.M., WISE J.W., SAVELL J.W., 2002. Beef customer satisfaction: factors affecting consumer evaluations of clod steaks. J Anim Sci 80, 401-408.
11. GREENACRE M., HASTIE T., 1987. The geometric interpretation of correspondence-analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 82, 437-447. doi:10.2307/2289445.
12. HENSON S., NORTHEN J., 2000. Consumer assessment of the safety of beef at the point of purchase: a pan-European study. J Agr Econ 51, 90-103.
13. HOUGH G., SÁNCHEZ R., 1998. Descriptive analysis and external preference mapping of powdered chocolate milk. Food Qual Pref 9, 197-204. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(97)00064-5.
14. KING S.C., WEBER A.J., MEISELMAN H.L., LV N., 2004. The effect of meal situation, social interaction, physical environment and choice on food acceptability. Food Qual Pref 15, 645-653. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.04.010.
15. KOZLOWSKA K., JERUSZKA M., MATUSZEWSKA I., ROSZKOWSKI W., BARYLKO-PIKIELNA N., BRZOZOWSKA A., 2003. Hedonic test in different locations as predictors of apple juice consumption at home in elderly and young subjects. Food Qual Pref 14, 653-661. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00207-0.
16. KUBBEROD E., UELAND O., RODBOTTEN M., WESTAD F., RISVIK E., 2002. Gender specific preferences and attitudes towards meat. Food Qual Pref 13, 285-294. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00041-1.
17. MCEWAN J.A., SCHLICH P., 1992. Correspondence analysis in sensory evaluation. Food Qual Pref 3, 23-26. doi:10.1016/0950-3293(91)90020-F.
18. MEISELMAN H.L., JOHNSON J.L., REEVE W., CROUCH J.E., 2000. Demonstrations of the influence of the eating environment on food acceptance. Appetite 35, 231-237. doi:10.1006/appe.2000.0360.
19. th Int Congress of Meat Sci and Tech, Camphinas. Brazil. 31th August-5th September. pp. 67-79.
20. MOSKOWITZ H., 2000. On the reliability of expert panel data - differences due to attribute type. Food Qual Pref 11, 145-146. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00067-1.
21. MUÑOZ A.M., CIVILLE G.V., 1998. Universal, product and attribute specific scaling and the development of common lexicons in descriptive analysis. J Sens Stud 13, 57-75. doi:10.1111/j.1745-459X.1998.tb00075.x.
22. NISHISATO S., 1980. Dual scaling of successive categories data. Jap Psych Res 22, 134-143.
23. POULSEN C.S., BROCKHOFF P.M.B., ERICHSEN L., 1997. Heterogeneity in consumer preference data - A combined approach. Food Qual Pref 8, 409-417. doi: 10.1016/S0950-3293(97)00060-8.
24. QANNARI E.M., VIGNEAU E., LUSCAN P., LEFEBVRE A.C., VEY F., 1997. Clustering of variables, application in consumer and sensory studies. Food Qual Pref 8, 423-428. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(97)00008-6.
25. ROBBINS K., JENSEN J., RYAN K.J., HOMCO-RYAN C., MCKEITH F.K., BREWER M.S., 2003. Consumer attitudes towards beef and acceptability of enhanced beef. Meat Sci 65, 721-729. doi:10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00274-7.
26. ROZIN P., TUORILA H., 1993. Simultaneous and temporal contextual infkueces on food acceptance. Food Qual Pref 4, 11-20. doi:10.1016/0950-3293(93)90309-T.
27. RUSSELL C.G., COX D.N., 2004. Understanding middle- aged consumers perceptions of meat using repertory grid methodology. Food Qual Pref 15, 317-329. doi:10.1016/ S0950-3293(03)00073-9.
28. TANG C., HEYMANN H., HSIEH F.H., 2000. Alternatives to data averaging of consumer preference data. Food Qual Pref 11, 99-104. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00019-1.
29. TEPPER B.J., CHOI Y.S., NAYGA R.M., 1997. Understanding food choice in adult men, Influence of nutrition knowledge, food beliefs and dietary restraint. Food Qual Pref 8, 307-317. doi:10.1016/S0950-3293(97)00014-1.
30. TORRES A., GREENACRE M., 2002. Dual scaling and correspondence analysis of preferences, paired compa- risons and ratings. Int J Res Marketing 19, 401-405. doi:10.1016/S0167-8116(02)00101-5.
31. TORRES A., VAN DE VELDEN M., 2007. Perceptual mapping of multiple variable batteries by plotting supplementary variables in correspondence analysis of rating data. Food Qual Pref 18, 121-129. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.09.005.
32. WANSICK B., PARK S.B., 2000. Comparison methods for identifying heavy users. J Advert Res 40, 61-72.
33. WANSICK B., 2003. Response to «Measuring consumer response to food products». Sensory tests that predict consumer acceptance. Food Qual Pref 14, 23-26. doi: 10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00035-6.